East Central Georgia P-16 Council
Co-Reform Challenge Grant
Year I
Purposes:
To focus the co-reform of teacher education, preparation programs for other educators, and the public schools
towards practices that result in all children/youth meeting high academic standards.
Goal #1: To promote collaboration and shared responsibility for co-reform of teacher education and public schools.
Goal #2: To prepare teachers who are able to facilitate improved student learning through the re-creation of teacher education based on high standards and shared responsibility.
Goal #3: To improve students' academic success through the creation of conducive learning environments with qualified teachers.
The Co-Reform Steering Committee, representing P-12, A&S, and COE, collaborated to provide guidance and oversight to assure that these goals would be achieved.
Objective 1: To establish and implement raised standards and assessment in the preparation of teachers
A set of Technology Standards for the GSU Teacher Education Program has been proposed by the Technology Standards Task Force. These are based on the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Foundations (1996 revision) that were adopted as indicators by NCATE. The Technology Standards will be linked to the TEP Standards. The study of technology standards with the subsequent proposal was accomplished by a separate task force that involved educators with expertise in technology, P-12 needs, and the application and integration of technology in instruction.
A third task force has developed a proposal that outlines a formal process for regularly reviewing teacher education programs to insure content inclusion that address P-12 content standards. A set of guidelines has been presented to the Steering Committee and will be submitted to the College of Education for approval and implementation during Fall 1998. Program Action Teams (with education, arts & sciences, and P-12 representation) have been established which will review programs and courses based on the P-12 content standards.
Lessons Learned
Partnership and "shared responsibility," especially with P-12 educators, has played a major role in all three areas of activity. Public school educators, including superintendents, principals, and classroom teachers, have been eager to share their ideas and concerns and have worked hard with university faculty to address difficult issues related to standards for teacher preparation. This collaborative work has helped build common understandings and goals for teacher preparation and has instigated a renewed enthusiasm and optimism in continued involvement as partners.
We have found that education faculty and administrators need to be open-minded for such efforts to be productive and must restrain from reacting defensively in the discussions. It was easy for P-12 educators to criticize and identify weaknesses, and it was easy for education faculty to defend current practices and offer information to counter-attack misinformation and misperceptions. Task Force leaders had to focus initial meetings on the rationale for the task to be accomplished, establishing mutual respect and equal footing for all participants and promoting constructive and visionary thinking.
A heavy burden rested with education faculty to organize the work, instigate the conversations, and be willing to place sensitive issues on the table for open discussion. It has been critical, however, for arts & sciences faculty and P-12 educators to assume some leadership roles in the task forces.
Each task force had to have clearly defined tasks with specific outcomes and with expectations for documentation of work accomplished, reporting of outcomes/proposals, established deadlines, and organizational and financial support for scheduled meetings. Task force participants were willing to give their time and expertise to the work if they were convinced that the outcomes were going to "make a difference." There is a need to see some short-term results as well as anticipated long-term improvements in the quality of teacher preparation.
It is extremely important to carefully select task force members so that each group involves people with the needed expertise and experience background, with interest and personal commitment to the task, with a reputation for working hard and completing tasks on time, and most importantly, with respect among his/her colleagues. This allowed for greater acceptance and "buy-in" within departments and institutions of the proposals submitted by the task forces.
It is also important to incorporate available technology to get busy collaborators across campus and across counties together on a regular basis. We successfully used distance learning technology and list-servs to assist the work of the Steering Committee and various task forces.
Revision/Next Steps
With the TEP Standards, much work is remaining with the full integration of the standards
in the various teacher education programs and their student competency assessment plans.
The original draft was revised to include a set of "Indicators" which will need to be tied to
the assessment model. Implementation and assessment are the immediate next steps in this
effort. We will also need to determine ways in which to make public the TEP Standards
and begin that effort. This will be a primary focus during the next year.
The Technology Standards will be submitted to the GSU College of Education for approval and implementation in Fall 1998. Full implementation with an assessment plan is scheduled for Fall 1999.
The charge of P-12 Content Standards Task Force was revised as the work began. Existing practices and policies were reviewed and sources of P-12 curriculum content discussed. However, since the school systems have not adopted specific content standards and use QCC objectives and ITBS objectives for the most part, focus has to be placed on identifying what P-12 content "standards" should be used for review by the teacher preparation programs and how this could occur through a systematic and collaborative process. The proposed process will be submitted to the GSU College of Education for adoption Fall 1998. During Year Two specific programs and courses will be reviewed by the Program Action Teams.
Objective 2: To expand and model instruction in the area of effective teaching strategies at all grade levels and in all educational settings.
During Fall 1997 Georgia Southern University and Bulloch County Schools formalized an Alliance to support school renewal and work toward the development of partner schools. Three school renewal planning teams have been working with specific Bulloch County Schools to promote their school improvement plans. These schools were selected through collaborative discussions, but instigated by the school system based on specific current needs. COE faculty with expertise in the identified areas have served on these teams, along with leadership personnel from the schools. The Sallie Zetterower Elementary School team focused on reading improvement. The Middle Schools team worked with the restructuring of middle schools in the county with a focus on adopting the middle school concept. The Statesboro High School team focused on the transition to block scheduling. These efforts will be ongoing and are still in early stages since dramatic changes are occurring in the schools (i.e. retired principal and change from K-2 to K-5 organization in Sallie Z; opening of a new middle school, closing of another, change from grade 6 to 6-8, and change from grade 7-8 to 6-8 in other middle schools; new leadership in the high school). This important work will continue throughout next year.
The Literacy Methods Task Force has been established and is beginning its work Spring 1998. The assessment of teaching strategies modeled, review of teacher preparation for P-12 learning environments, and review of technology integration in programs (using new Technology Standards) will be conducted by Program Action Teams in Year Two. A delay was necessitated by semester conversion demands in the College of Education and the desired completion of the TEP and Technology Standards that would impact these reviews.
Two workshops, one for English educators and one for Mathematics educators, were held for the articulation of subject content expectations/standards across secondary and college levels. Eighty-five P-12 teachers and curriculum directors attended these workshops. The programs were led by arts & sciences faculty from the Department of Writing and Linguistics (College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences) and the Department of Mathematics and Computer Sciences (College of Science and Technology), but the programs were very interactive in nature. The workshops received high evaluations by the participants, and the model will be continued next year. In conjunction with these workshops, we have established list-serv communications for educators in each of the disciplines--English and Math--beginning with workshop participants (college and high school teachers). Faculty in the cooperating arts & sciences departments are assisting with the development of web pages with career and college information related to the discipline for P-12 teachers and their students. These will be linked to the ECG P-16 web page.
Lessons Learned
Public school administrators and teachers have been very supportive of the Demonstration
Teacher concept, expressing a belief that this collaboration will raise the level of
commitment and professionalism for the teachers and schools involved in teacher
preparation. It is also considered an indicator of Georgia Southern's commitment to
quality field experiences and regard for educators in the field who offer their time, energy,
and expertise on a daily basis to teacher preparation. The collaborative planning by P-16
educators and by education and arts & sciences faculty is perceived as critical.
It was found it necessary to accommodate the public schools' and systems' agenda and constraints in the development of Partner Schools when assisting with school renewal. The P-12 partners must guide this work using the new avenues for collaboration. Patience and a positive approach are critical.
It was also realized that we couldn't initiate every action during Year One and had to follow a logical sequence of activity and time frames in accomplishing the tasks. Work had to be prioritized and faculty's other obligations had to be considered so that willingness to participate was fostered.
The curriculum articulation workshops were tremendously successful. School systems were eager to send their teachers and curriculum coordinators to these meetings. Requests were even received from school systems that are not in the ECG P-16 Council. Participants were anxious to receive information directly from college faculty, but were also eager to share ideas and interact on a collegial basis. College faculty and administrators who planned the sessions consciously sought to remove barriers (such as avoiding "Dr." status and "hand-picking" program facilitators). The arts & sciences deans, chairs, and faculty were very willing to participate and assume leadership in planning and conducting the workshops. It was helpful to provide organizational and secretarial support so that the work of communicating with school systems and participating teachers, registration, and preparation of material was handled efficiently without overburdening the volunteering arts & sciences faculty. The availability of monies to pay for substitute teachers, travel, and food expenses seemed critical in decisions by school superintendents to send teachers to the workshops.
Revision/Next Steps
The original plans called for the selection and training of fewer Demonstration Teachers
during Year One. However, opportunities for funding redirection called for increasing the
number; therefore, by the end of Year One we had accomplished what we had expected to
accomplish by the end of Year Two. Therefore the completion of the selection of 175
teachers and their intensive training will be a priority in the upcoming months. During Year
Two, developing systems for regular communication, collaboration, and meaningful
professional development with the Demonstration Teachers and their schools/systems will
be a focus. With additional redirected funds, an additional 75 teachers will be selected as
Demonstration Teachers for Fall 1999.
The GSU-Bulloch County Alliance school renewal efforts will continue. It is intended that partner schools will be the result of the school renewal efforts. Therefore, a review of the plans for partner schools will take place Fall 1998.
The Literacy Methods Task Force began its work during Spring 1998 and, by the end of Fall 1998, will propose revisions to reading/language arts methods courses and offer recommendations for improving the reading/literacy components in the Early Childhood Education, Special Education, and Middle Grades programs.
Program Action Teams will be reviewing their respective programs in the following areas: (a) assessment of teaching strategies used--in education and arts & sciences courses--and professional development needs related to improving; instruction; (b) review curriculum for teacher preparation for P-12 learning environments; (c) integration of technology in the curriculum based on the new Technology Standards; (d) incorporation of new TEP Standards in the curriculum and assessment plan.
The curriculum articulation workshops will continue during Year Two. In Fall 1998 a workshop will be planned based on the model used during Year One for English educators; however, this workshop will involve technical institute and East Georgia College (two-year college) faculty. A workshop will be scheduled in the Fall for Social Science educators. In Spring 1999 a workshop for Math educators will be scheduled with technical institute and East Georgia College faculty. In addition, a workshop for Science and/or Foreign Languages educators will be offered in Spring 1999.
Objective 3: To put qualified and competent teachers in P-12 classrooms through recruitment and professional development.
The Teacher Induction Task Force has proposed a multi-faceted plan for the induction of GSU teacher-graduates in partner school systems. Since the induction plan was developed collaboratively with representatives of four partner school systems, it supports their current efforts, is flexible to meet those systems' needs, and promotes collaboration between the schools, GSU faculty, and RESA educators.
Professional development during Year One concentrated on networking the English and Math Disciplinary Alliances through the establishment of list-servs and interactive Web sites and through curriculum articulation workshops.
Lessons Learned
Collaboration between key P-12 school system personnel, RESA staff members, and GSU
faculty proved critical in examining recruitment, program, and induction issues. It was
important to engage knowledgeable, creative-thinking, and respected representatives from
each institution. Sufficient time was needed to be provided for full discussion of issues and
for productive brainstorming.
It was quickly realized that not all actions could be initiated during Year One and actions had to be prioritized. Professional development will be very important, and innovative structures and means for networking educators among institutions is needed (i.e. list-servs, interactive Web, distance learning).
Revision/Next Steps
The collaborative recruitment plan will be refined and reviewed for implementation during
Year Two. Program development will begin during Year Two in response to the proposals
of the task force.
The induction plan will be reviewed for adoption by GSU and each of the four partner school systems during Fall 1998. Plans will be developed during Year Two for full implementation Fall 1999.
Semester conversion activity during the past year has delayed academic mentoring. This opportunity for students and arts & sciences faculty will be developed during the next academic year. The teacher-scholar in residence program will be reconsidered by GSU administration and the P-12 partners for feasibility during Year Two.
Collaborative professional development activities will be offered during Year Two that will focus on technology integration and supervision. Disciplinary Alliance networking and professional development will expand to include other subject areas (Science, Social Science, and Foreign Languages) and other levels (i.e. Elementary, Middle Grades, and Technical Institutes).